On March 8, 2017, CPIP Scholars Adam Mossoff, Devlin Hartline, Chris Holman, Sean O’Connor, Kristen Osenga, & Mark Schultz joined an amicus brief in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods. CPIP Scholars worked with USD Law’s Ted Sichelman to organize, write, and file the brief. Read more
Tag: Adam Mossoff
CPIP Scholars File Amicus Brief Urging Consideration of Claimed Inventions as a Whole
Last week, CPIP Senior Scholar Adam Mossoff and I filed an amicus brief on behalf of 15 law professors, including CPIP’s Devlin Hartline, Chris Holman, Sean O’Connor, Kristen Osenga, and Mark Schultz. We urge the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in TDE Petroleum v. Read more
CPIP Founders File Amicus Brief on Behalf of 11 Law Professors in Converse v. ITC
CPIP Founders Adam Mossoff & Mark Schultz filed an amicus brief today on behalf of 11 law professors in Converse v. International Trade Commission, a trademark case currently before the Federal Circuit.
In late-2014, Converse filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission alleging that more than thirty companies, including Skechers, Walmart, New Balance, and Highline, were violating Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing and selling infringing shoes. Read more
Trading Technologies v. CQG: Federal Circuit Gets One Right On Software Patents
The Federal Circuit issued another important opinion yesterday affirming that software is a patentable invention in the United States. In Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., the court determined that a graphical user interface (GUI) for a commodities trading platform was patent eligible. Read more
CPIP, USPTO, & Lemelson Center Host “Great Inventors” Panel Discussion at American History Museum
On February 16, 2017, CPIP hosted a panel discussion, America as a Place of Innovation: Great Inventors and the Patent System, at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C. The event was co-hosted by the Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation at the Smithsonian Institution and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Read more
Supreme Court Should Not Reward Efficient Infringement in Apple v. Samsung
In Apple v. Samsung, the Supreme Court is presented with a classic issue of statutory interpretation in the case that has come to exemplify the Smart Phone Wars. In one of the many lawsuits brought by Apple against Samsung after Samsung rejected Apple’s offer to license its patents, a jury found Samsung liable for infringing Apple’s design patents on the iPhone. Read more
Federal Circuit Again Finds Computer-Implemented Invention Patent Eligible
In Tuesday’s McRO v. Bandai decision, the Federal Circuit has once again reversed a district court’s determination that a computer-implemented invention (aka “software patent”) was not patent eligible under Section 101 of the Patent Act. This continues the Federal Circuit’s recent trend of clarifying the Supreme Court’s two-step patent-eligibility test under Mayo and Alice. Read more
Law Professors & Economists Urge Caution on VENUE Act in Letter to Congress
Today, 28 law professors, economists, and political scientists from across the nation submitted a letter to Congress expressing serious concerns about the recent push for sweeping changes to patent litigation venue rules, such as those proposed in the VENUE Act. The letter is copied below, and it can be downloaded here: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2816062 Read more
CPIP Scholars File Amicus Brief in Trading Technologies v. CQG
Earlier this month, CPIP Senior Scholar Adam Mossoff penned an amicus brief in Trading Technologies v. CQG, currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit. The brief was joined by nine other IP scholars, including CPIP Senior Scholars Mark Schultz and Kristen Osenga. Read more
Federal Circuit Brings Some Clarity and Sanity Back to Patent Eligibility Doctrine
By Adam Mossoff and Kevin Madigan
Following the Supreme Court’s four decisions on patent eligibility for inventions under § 101 of the Patent Act, there has been much disruption and uncertainty in the patent system. The patent bar and most stakeholders in the innovation industries have found the Supreme Court’s decisions in Alice Corp. Read more